Publication guidelines: editorial efficiency or professional despair?

[EN] Las guías de publicación (GP) son documentos elaborados por las revistas con el fin de instruir a los autores a la hora de enviar un manuscrito para su publicación. A tal fin incluyen desde aspectos formales que deben cumplir los documentos para su envío (formato de las referencias bibliográficas, extensión, estructura, etc.) hasta información relativa a aspectos éticos del trabajo científico o políticas editoriales de las revistas. Pese a la importancia de estos documentos para la gestión de la investigación, su claridad y calidad son muy desiguales entre publicaciones, generando frustración al personal investigador y gastos económicos a las editoriales. El objetivo de este trabajo es proponer un decálogo de recomendaciones genéricas para la elaboración de guías de publicación, así como establecer una taxonomía de elementos informativos a incluir en estos documentos.Orduña Malea, E. (2021). Guías de publicación: ¿eficiencia editorial o desesperación profesional?. Anuario ThinkEPI. 15:1-7. https://doi.org/10.3145/thinkepi.2021.e15e05S1715Cabrera-Nguyen, Peter (2010). “Author guidelines for reporting scale development and validation results in the Journal of the society for social work and research”. Journal of the Society for social work and research, v. 1, n. 2, pp. 99-103. https://doi.org/10.5243/jsswr.2010.8Fecyt (2020). Bases de la séptima convocatoria de evaluación de la calidad editorial y científica de las revistas científicas españolas. Fecyt. https://calidadrevistas.fecyt.es/sites/default/files/noticias/report_2020_12_10bases7conv_def_2.pdfFennell, Catriona (2016). “‘Your paper, your way’ has made submission easier for more than 1 million authors”. Elsevier connect [blog post], 6 septiembre. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/editors-update/your-paper,-your-way-has-made-submission-easier-for-more-than-1-million-authorsKent, Anderson (2018). “Interpreting Elsevier’s acquisition of Aries systems”. The scholarly kitchen [blog post], 6 agosto. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/08/06/interpreting-elseviers-acquisition-aries-systemsLiu, Jianxin (2021). “Video or perish? An analysis of video abstract author guidelines”. Journal of librarianship and information science [online first]. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006211006774Nambiar, Remya; Tilak, Priyanka; Cerejo, Clarinda (2014). “Quality of author guidelines of journals in the biomedical and physical sciences”. Learned publishing, v. 27, n. 3, pp. 201-206. https://doi.org/10.1087/20140306Oermann, Marilyn H.; Nicoll, Leslie H.; Chinn, Peggy L.; Conklin, Jamie L.; McCarty, Midory; Amarasekara, Sathya (2018). “Quality of author guidelines in nursing journals”. Journal of nursing scholarship, v. 50, n. 3, pp. 333-340. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12383Sun, Yu-Chih (2021). “Do journals’ author guidelines tell us what we need to know about plagiarism?”. Journal of scholarly publishing, v. 52, n. 3, pp. 156-172. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.52.3.03Wu, Shiyou; Wyant, Diane C.; Fraser, Mark W. (2016). “Author guidelines for manuscripts reporting on qualitative research”. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, v. 7, n. 2, pp. 405-425. https://doi.org/10.1086/68581

Multiple publications: The main reason for the retraction of papers in computer science

This paper intends to review the reasons for the retraction over the last decade. The paper particularly aims at reviewing these reasons with reference to computer science field to assist authors in comprehending the style of writing. To do that, a total of thirty-six retracted papers found on the Web of Science within Jan 2007 through July 2017 are explored. Given the retraction notices which are based on ten common reasons, this paper classifies the two main categories, namely random and nonrandom retraction. Retraction due to the duplication of publications scored the highest proportion of all other reasons reviewed

A review of the literature on ethical issues related to scientific authorship

The article at hand presents the results of a literature review on the ethical issues related to scientific authorship. These issues are understood as questions and/or concerns about obligations, values or virtues in relation to reporting, authorship and publication of research results. For this purpose, the Web of Science core collection was searched for English resources published between 1945 and 2018, and a total of 324 items were analyzed. Based on the review of the documents, ten ethical themes have been identified, some of which entail several ethical issues. Ranked on the basis of their frequency of occurrence these themes are: 1) attribution, 2) violations of the norms of authorship, 3) bias, 4) responsibility and accountability, 5) authorship order, 6) citations and referencing, 7) definition of authorship, 8) publication strategy, 9) originality, and 10) sanctions. In mapping these themes, the current article explores major ethical issue and provides a critical discussion about the application of codes of conduct, various understandings of culture, and contributing factors to unethical behavior